Dragon's Dogma on hard mode. Unfortunately, it's not really that hard, but I love the game anyway.

I also just bought Vanquish. Heard some really good things about it.

I don't recall anything on the games box about "GET KILLED BY ASSHOLES ALL DAY EVERY DAY!" or pvp at all, I play because it's fun despite all the dickwraithing going on.

Didn't it say "Prepare to die" though? And isn't the multiplayer system one of the clear USPs of this game?

Why "assholes"? These are just people who have their fun with the game just as you do. They don't cheat, hack your account, or otherwise intentionally spoil anyone's fun. They are playing by the rules that were put there by the designers and are a significant part of the core experience.

I'd also pose the reverse question; why do you put up with the rest of the game when all you want is pvp?

Because it's great. Great level design, great sense of danger and mystery, cool combat mechanics. And player interactions on top of that. I just enjoy the game as a whole.

I'm also not that interested in PvP. I like it when I get invaded, and I like to be able to hold my own. It gives me that special sense of accomplishment that defeating AI monsters can't ever give, and it's also experience unique to this game. But it's definitely not all I want from Dark Souls. In fact, I think its PvP would be too laggy and focused on lag-stabbing to be considered good gameplay on its own.


In any case, there's no reason to get aggressive. I'm not telling you how to play your game or that your way is somehow inferior. I was just genuinely interested why you liked it despite hating one of its core features. And maybe mildly disgruntled that you are calling people who play the same game "assholes", just because they play it differently than you.

I must say I don't get it. If you don't like invasions and getting killed, if you think it's not fun -- that's okay. But then why do you play Dark Souls? The whole concept of this game is built around challenge, and invasions are a very significant part of it.

It's one of the unique aspects of the game and it's what makes it fun -- it's hard and you can also get invaded by other players, so there's a constant sense of threat, constant necessity to improvise. The whole covenant system exists so that player have different ways to invade each other, thus keeping the PvP alive. And you don't really lose much when you die either.

Of course, I can get why someone wouldn't like those aspects. But isn't it like playing CoD and then complaining it would be better without all that shooting?

Actually, wasn't it always that IGF finalists kinda got a free pass on Steam? Just now it was made "official". Makes sense either way.

[entirely how #1reasonwhy started.]

Maybe as many women just, you know, don't want to make games? What exactly is the problem that needs fixing, isn't it their right to like different things?

I know you probably mean well, but believe me, this argument is itself problematic. It gets trotted out whenever an issue of imbalance is brought up. "Maybe women just don't want to study science! Maybe Japanese people are just naturally less good at writing!" (someone's statement upon noting that few Japanese writers have won the Nobel prize for literature) Or if you really want to wince, look at any discussion about why there aren't so many prominent black swimmers (or certain other 'posh' sports). "They naturally sink!" is only the beginning of the weird stuff you'll hear.

Or coming back around to visual novels again, a few years back the crowd of people trying to make them in English was almost entirely male, and could shrug that "well, girls just aren't interested in anime games". After a few games came out and more and more girls started flooding into the fandom, now people are blankly proclaiming "Well, guys just don't like to read, that's why it's a mostly female thing" as if this somehow makes sense and isn't a complete reversal...

People don't like to think that there might be a problem, particularly a complicated and hard to address problem, so they start with how things are and try to invent an explanation that justifies the status quo as correct and natural.

The thing is, it's usually not true, and it's usually not hard to find evidence that it's not true. Take female representation in sciences. In some settings you'll find almost none. In others you'll find quite a lot. There have been studies showing that encouragement and perceived cultural norms made a huge difference in young women being willing and interested in studying sciences.

For that matter, "maybe women just don't like to make games" is entirely how #1reasonwhy started. That's why people started tweeting all these examples of women who DO want to make games (and in many cases, who got past that and went on to make games anyway) and the vast amount of discouragement and other things they've faced along the way, which has quite likely turned away tons of people who aren't as stubborn as we are.

Listen to Hanako, because she speaks the truth.

Yeah quick question: How do you handle pre-orders?

When someone buys one, they receive a preview build of the game. It's a lot like a demo, but exclusive only to pre-order owners. It gives them something tangible, while also letting me gather early feedback. When the game is ready, I just replace the demo with the final build and resend customers their purchase information.

It's all handled through BMT Micro.

It's not really cynical. It's perfectly normal that the general public doesn't care about each and every indie (until they get very well known). Lots of games are coming out and human mind can only focus on so many things at once. It doesn't mean you shouldn't do promotion as a small indie. Just that you shouldn't take example from the bigger studios. They are in a different situation.

By social networks I meant just twitter, facebook, and existing fans following your website. But it's really up to you.

Personal experience tells me that silent launch followed by a big press push works best and is the safest. If you want specific examples, here's how I did it with Cinders:

- After leaving my last job, we started a new website for our team and notified my existing press contacts that we're full-time indie now. This was to get some initial traction -- get people to check the website, like our facebook, twitter, etc. Also to notify our former fans that we're doing something new.

- When I announced the game, I contacted the press again. Same reasons as before -- get some more initial traction.

- Went into silent mode for most of the development. Worked on the game and didn't promote it outside of our inner circles of fans. This is important as you are risking losing trust at this point. If you tell the press that your game is almost finished and then it gets delayed (it always does), they may either forget about it or assume it's vaporware.

- Launched pre-orders for the game. Didn't contact the press. Only fans. Press doesn't like when you spam them, especially with deals on games they can't check yet. You don't want to land on their "this guy's a spammer" list.

- When the game was done, we delivered it to the pre-order owners at first. We've let them play it for a week before the official release. If you have enough pre-orders, that's even better than doing a public silent launch. It was a good idea, as we've found out the game still had problems at that point. Pre-order owners knew they are getting it earlier than the rest, so they were very patient and understanding. But if we released it to the public and the press at that point, it could affect their opinion negatively.

- We fixed all the problems. Corrected typos, removed some bugs, tweaked some values. Made sure the press and general public are getting our best. You have only one chance at making the first impression. I learned it the hard way when I released my Magi seven years ago.

- The game was officially released. I waited a day or two before contacting the press. Just to be sure there aren't any new problems that could ruin the experience.

- I first contacted the outlets that I had the best connection with. Either they knew me from my former work or we were on good terms in general. When they published their articles, it gave me some "social proof". Very useful in contacting outlets that you don't have existing relationship with. "Hey look, an indie game" sometimes doesn't work. "Hey look, an indie game that indiegames.com wrote good things about" usually works better.

- First reviews also got us some attention by themselves. For example, I never contacted Kotaku, but they featured the game.

- A month later, I started contacting any outlets that I missed during the first big push. This time, I had a whole bunch of social proof I could rely on, with some good names recommending people to play the game. Worked pretty okay. Most journalists didn't mind it's a month-old title.

I released and promoted 7 games in total during my career, and this is what I came to consider as the most efficient way. Also, from checking website analytics at my former job and during my current indie endeavors, I know that most people who visit the website after reading a review, stay only for a very short time. If they can't find a demo, they mostly leave to never return again.

Let me know if you have any more questions -- I'm always happy to help .

You are not big enough to build hype with pre-release press push. You are a small indie, not a AAA studio. Nobody cares about you and people won't remember your game 5 mins after they're done with the article. On the other hand, if you promote a game that was released a week ago, nobody will be bothered by it either.

So just release the game and start the press push. Make sure that people who've read about it can check the website and download the demo right away. Actually, it's often a good idea to do a silent launch first. Release the game but don't promote it outside from your social networks. Let some people get it and see if there aren't any technical or gameplay problems that should be fixed. When you are sure everything's all right, start the press push.

Agreed. Also, while Game Maker is pretty capable and should be more than enough for most 2D projects, it's not perfect. I once wrote a lengthy review of it, from a more professional development standpoint (I've been using it for years for commercial projects). Check it out, if you want: LINK.

From what I've seen so far, I think I'll stick with MMF2.  Does anyone else have suggestions?  There's also Game Maker, would that be just downright better than these two?

For a more complicated project, yeah, I would say Game Maker is downright better.

Told ya Rogue Galaxy gets repetitive after a while.

You should try The World Ends With You. It's the last jRPG from Sqaure Enix I thought was actually interesting, with completely original plot and game mechanics.

From more recent jRPGs, I liked Xenoblade Chronicles. It's also pretty repetitive after a while (duh, jRPG), but the plot and world were enough to make me want to finish it.

Thanks. At some point, I need to make a gif showing the progress through all iterations, including the earliest prototypes. It's cool to see how the game slowly attains its final style.

New version of the desert background. With animated heat distortion and shit. So basically The Lion King:

It costs $1 minimum now. Which makes sense. If you would get a starving indie image in a THQ sale, that would definitely be getting too far  .

Everyone jumped on their opportunity to get some games super-cheap and pretend it's for some greater cause, and now they complain when it was made clear that it was about money all along.

I don't think this is true, as they've always been giving money to charity.  If they were really super greedy money-is-everything guys, they wouldn't be doing any charity stuff.

Charity is a very important part of their brand, just like supporting indies, and selling DRM-free games. It's another factor that made the bundle spread like wildfire, made every journalist write about it, and made people feel like they are not only buying some games but doing good in the process. We can't know for sure of course, but I guess the additional traffic and interest more than covered the charity costs.

Which is not to say that some good doesn't come out of it, or that it's not an attractive option for the customers.

they have usually always maintained multi-platform drm free games as the main selling point of their bundles, with the additional option of being able to donate to charity and get some cool games in the process. this rule has been broken a few times, but not to the point where the games are only available on windows and require steam + whatever additional drm the games have themselves.

I feel it's a just complaint. it's basically just a steam sale but you have the option to donate to charity. there is no other benefit other than getting the games at a cheap price.

It is a just complaint and I get how this can be the tipping point for some, but to me this whole thing is a natural outcome of being a commercial startup and comes as no surprise.

Humble is a money making company with a solid vc investment. They've shown before that the whole principles thing is just a clever marketing ploy and they can abandon it if they smell more profit. It's what their investors expect them to do. If people wanted to complain that Humble doesn't really stand for its ideals, be it "indieness" or lack of DRM, they could do it long before now. But nope. Everyone jumped on their opportunity to get some games super-cheap and pretend it's for some greater cause, and now they complain when it was made clear that it was about money all along.

I dunno why people are surprised or complain about this bundle. Humble was always a commercial startup, and it's been a while since it's clear that the "humble" and "indie" parts were only there for marketing purposes.

The model works, they earn money, good for them.

rogue galaxy

9 hours in its pretty great

It's a really cool game, but got too repetitive for me after a while and I never finished it. Now I kinda regret it.

My experience lately is that personalized emails and direct contact always beats automated PR distribution. Formal press releases are boring, nobody wants to write them, nobody wants to read them. They are mostly re-posted by bots or ignored, and it's time consuming and pricey to do them.

I also noticed that once you get to a certain notoriety threshold (or you have some genuinely interesting game), your marketing effort stops being so important as the press gets interested anyway. For example -- my freeware game Co-Op got more coverage that most of the commercial games I've ran PR for. It was only a small jam project, so I haven't promoted it at all, and it still landed on RPS, indiegames.com, and the likes. For Cinders, we've got some pretty good coverage, and all thanks to direct emails, word of mouth, and journalists finding about the game through other reviews and their social networks. Actually, the most prominent mentions (from Kotaku and TheMarySue.com) came without us doing a thing.

On the other hand, when I was doing press releases at the last company I worked for (for three years), we haven't really noticed much impact on our traffic or coverage. I also got many angry emails in the vein of: "Remove me from your spam list!!!", which made me question the worth of all those contacts that PR distribution services like to brag about.

Of course, this is all from my personal experience, so your mileage may vary. It may still be worth at least a few tries.

yeah me. it's actually a lot more traditional than you'd think and there isn't any kind of journal or anything so it's extremely hard to pick up again once you stop playing.

it's decent but jrpgs aren't platinum's forte lol

Yeah, I remember rants about the lack of journal in reviews. Seems really stupid. Still, it was interesting enough to warrant a buy. So far it doesn't look very good, though. Battles are pretty awful. You either have to watch lengthy sequences or skip them and don't know what happened.